G.R. No. L-6251 - Manaois vs. Zamora

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-6251)

Factual Background

Corazon J. Odelmo filed a criminal complaint before the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman (Visayas) on February 12, 1993, charging petitioners, among others, with the killing of her husband, Dionisio Odelmo, and her father-in-law, Jose Odelmo, on December 31, 1992. After preliminary investigation, the Deputy Ombudsman filed two Informations for Murder against petitioners with the Regional Trial Court of Bago City, Negros Occidental, Branch 62. The cases were docketed as Criminal Cases Nos. 1112 and 1116. Presiding Judge Marietta Hobilla-Alinio issued warrants for the arrest of petitioners.

Petitioners moved to recall the warrants and to quash the Informations, alleging that they were not furnished a copy of the Ombudsman Resolution dated December 14, 1993. Judge Alinio issued an Order on January 26, 1994, placing execution of the warrants in abeyance and quashing the Informations. On denial of the Ombudsman’s motion for reconsideration, the Ombudsman elevated the matter to the Court via certiorari in G.R. Nos. 118813-14.

Prior Supreme Court Ruling in G.R. Nos. 118813-14

In a Decision dated April 8, 1997, the Court granted the Ombudsman’s petition in G.R. Nos. 118813-14 and set aside Judge Alinio’s Orders insofar as they quashed the Informations and denied reconsideration. The Court directed that, since Judge Alinio had died in the interim, the case be remanded to the Office of the Ombudsman for completion of the proceedings by furnishing a copy of the questioned orders to private respondents and then resolving incidents with dispatch, with the result to be immediately indorsed to the trial court for appropriate action.

Petitioners’ Motions for Clarificatory Questions and the Ombudsman’s Actions

Instead of moving for reconsideration of the probable-cause determination, petitioners, on April 30, 1997, filed a “Motion to Set Hearing for Clarificatory Question”, asserting that the complainant, Corazon J. Odelmo, executed three conflicting affidavits, thus requiring clarificatory questions. They followed this with a “Manifestation with Motion to Conduct Clarificatory Questions” filed on June 5, 1997, again requesting clarificatory questions on the complainant and her witnesses.

The Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Visayas wrote a letter on July 18, 1997 to the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Negros Occidental, forwarding petitioners’ motion and requesting results of reinvestigation. Thereafter, the record showed that the Office of the Special Prosecutor/Ombudsman, Manila, filed an Ex-Parte Omnibus Motion praying for the issuance of arrest warrants without bail and for the setting of cases for trial as soon as possible.

On October 1, 1997, however, the Deputy Ombudsman for Visayas wrote to the Provincial Prosecutor revoking and withdrawing its earlier directive to conduct a reinvestigation and/or clarificatory questions. Consequently, on October 8, 1997, the Deputy Ombudsman issued its first assailed Order denying petitioners’ motions for a clarificatory hearing. Petitioners sought reconsideration through a Motion for Reconsideration and a Supplement. On January 8, 1998, the Deputy Ombudsman issued the second assailed Order denying reconsideration. The second denial treated petitioners’ reconsideration as, in substance, a second motion for reconsideration of the resolution dated August 10, 1993.

Petitioners then filed the present petition for certiorari and mandamus, alleging that the Ombudsman acted with grave abuse of discretion or in excess of jurisdiction by refusing to conduct reinvestigation and/or clarificatory questioning in the light of the Court’s directive in G.R. Nos. 118813-14.

Trial Court Developments and Allegations of Desistance

After pleadings were filed by the Office of the Solicitor General and by the Office of the Chief Legal Counsel of the Ombudsman, the Regional Trial Court of Bago City, Branch 62 issued an Order on March 3, 1999 suspending and holding in abeyance proceedings in Criminal Cases Nos. 1112 and 1116, pending resolution by the Ombudsman of a motion for reconsideration and pending the Court’s action on the instant petition.

During the pendency of the case, petitioners filed on August 1, 2000 a “Manifestation and Motion” asserting that Corazon J. Odelmo executed an affidavit on February 11, 2000 stating that she did not recognize the persons who killed her husband and father-in-law because their faces were covered, and that she no longer desired to prosecute petitioners. Petitioners attached an uncertified photocopy of the affidavit and asked for reinvestigation and/or clarificatory questioning, or alternatively for the dismissal of the Informations.

On August 9, 2000, Corazon Odelmo filed a Manifestation stating that she could not in conscience prosecute petitioners because she knew that they had nothing to do with the killing, and she prayed that the Court order dismissal of the criminal cases. The Manifestation was neither sworn nor verified. Petitioners later filed a motion for Temporary Restraining Order/Preliminary Injunction on September 1, 2000 to enjoin the trial court from proceeding with the criminal cases. The Court issued a temporary restraining order upon bond on September 27, 2000, stopping the trial court pending resolution of this petition.

On October 17, 2000, petitioners filed a Motion to Dismiss on the ground that the cases had remained pending for almost eight years due to the Ombudsman’s continued refusal to complete preliminary investigation. Petitioners attached affidavits of Corazon Odelmo and her children, Arnel, Arlan, and Pinky, all surnamed Odelmo, averring that petitioners had nothing to do with the killings and that they had no objection to dismissal. They followed with a further Manifestation filed by the same children.

The Issues Presented

The petition placed in issue whether the Deputy Ombudsman for Visayas committed grave abuse of discretion or acted in excess of jurisdiction when it denied petitioners’ request for clarificatory questioning and refused to complete preliminary investigation through such clarificatory hearing, especially after the Court’s earlier directive in G.R. Nos. 118813-14 that the Ombudsman complete the proceedings. The petition also implicitly asked whether clarificatory questioning was warranted in the presence of asserted desistance-related affidavits and conflicts in the complainant’s statements.

The Parties’ Contentions

Petitioners maintained that the refusal to conduct clarificatory hearing deprived them of the full measure of their due process right to a preliminary investigation and to the particular procedural step necessary to clarify material issues arising from the complainant’s affidavits, including affidavits of desistance. They invoked the Court’s directive in G.R. Nos. 118813-14, contending that the Ombudsman’s duty to complete the preliminary investigation included the conduct of clarificatory questions where facts required clarification.

The Ombudsman, through the pleadings filed in response to the petition, defended the assailed Orders. The second assailed Order had denied the motion for reconsideration on the ground that it was actually a second motion for reconsideration of the earlier resolution dated August 10, 1993, and the Ombudsman’s position was therefore that reconsideration was no longer proper and clarificatory proceedings were not warranted as requested.

Legal Basis and Reasoning

The Court began by emphasizing the clarity of its directive in G.R. Nos. 118813-14. The instruction to “complete the proceedings” required the Ombudsman to complete the preliminary investigation. The Court reiterated that the right to a preliminary investigation is not merely formal. It held that the right to a preliminary investigation before an accused is bound over to trial and placed at risk of incarceration or other penalty is a substantive right. Denial of preliminary investigation would deprive an accused of the full measure of due process.

The Court then focused on the specific procedural mechanism requested by petitioners. It held that the propounding of clarificatory questions is an important component of preliminary investigation. It considered this case particularly suitable for clarificatory questioning because petitioners had requested it to shed light on affidavits of desistance purportedly executed by the private complainant. The Court anchored this position on the Ombudsman’s own procedural rules: under Administrative Order No. 7 (Re: Rules of Procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman), Rule II, Sec. 4(f), if material facts exist that the investigating officer may need to clarify, the investigating officer may conduct a clarificatory hearing where the parties may be present, though without the right to examine or cross-examine the witness.

Accordingly, the Court found that the Deputy Ombudsman for Visayas committed grave abuse of discretion when, on October 1, 1997, it revoked its earlier directive to the Provincial Prosecutor to conduct a re-investigation and/or clarificatory questions in the criminal cases against petitioners. The Court viewed the subsequent refusal to

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. L-6251)

Parties and Procedural Posture

The petitioners were the respondents in two criminal proceedings for Murder filed by the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for the Visayas.
The respondents included the Deputy Ombudsman, the Ombudsman, and a Judge of the RTC, as well as Corazon J. Odelmo, the complainant.
Petitioners filed a special civil action for certiorari and mandamus to annul two assailed Orders of the Deputy Ombudsman in OMB-VIS-CRIM-93-0253 dated October 8, 1997 and January 8, 1998.
Petitioners also sought an order directing the Office of the Ombudsman to conduct a reinvestigation and/or clarificatory questions in Criminal Cases Nos. 1112 and 1116.
While the petition was pending, the RTC issued an Order suspending and holding in abeyance proceedings in the criminal cases pending action by the Ombudsman and the instant ruling.
After the Supreme Court’s favorable disposition, the assailed Ombudsman Orders were annulled and set aside, with directions to conduct a clarificatory hearing and complete the preliminary investigation.

Key Factual Allegations

The complainant, Corazon Odelmo, filed a criminal complaint against petitioners for the killing of her husband, Dionisio Odelmo, and her father-in-law, Jose Odelmo, on December 31, 1992.
The complaint was filed on February 12, 1993 with the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman (Visayas) and docketed as OMB-VIS-CRIM-93-0253.
After preliminary investigation, the Deputy Ombudsman filed two Informations for Murder against petitioners with the RTC of Bago City, Branch 62, docketed as Criminal Cases Nos. 1112 and 1116.
Petitioners later claimed they were not furnished a copy of the Ombudsman Resolution dated December 14, 1993.
After the Ombudsman proceedings, petitioners invoked purported affidavits of desistance executed by the complainant and argued that clarificatory questions were needed because of conflicting affidavits and the circumstances surrounding them.
Petitioners later submitted additional materials indicating that the complainant and her children allegedly had no objection to dismissal and asserted petitioners’ lack of participation, including an affidavit presented as an uncertified photocopy and a manifestation that was not sworn or verified.

Prior Supreme Court Ruling

Petitioners previously challenged the trial court’s handling of their case through an Ombudsman-originated certiorari petition docketed as G.R. Nos. 118813-14.
The Supreme Court rendered a Decision on April 8, 1997 granting that earlier petition.
The Court set aside the RTC’s order that had quashed the Informations and the RTC’s denial of reconsideration.
The Court directed that the case be remanded to the Office of the Ombudsman for completion of proceedings by furnishing a copy of the questioned orders to the private respondents and then resolving with dispatch whatever incidents ensued.
Instead of seeking reconsideration of the Ombudsman’s probable cause finding, petitioners filed motions seeking clarification and clarificatory questions because of conflicting affidavits attributed to the complainant.

Ombudsman Actions and Assailed Orders

After the Supreme Court’s April 8, 1997 directive, petitioners filed a Motion to Set Hearing for Clarificatory Question on April 30, 1997.
Petitioners’ motion alleged that the complaining witness executed three conflicting affidavits, warranting clarificatory questions.
Petitioners filed a subsequent Manifestation with Motion to Conduct Clarificatory Questions on June 5, 1997, reiterating the prayer for clarificatory questions to be propounded on the complainant and her witnesses.
The Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for the Visayas wrote a letter on July 18, 1997 forwarding petitioners’ manifestation and requesting results of the reinvestigation.
Thereafter, an ex parte omnibus motion was filed in the criminal cases praying for the issuance of a warrant of arrest without bail and for prompt trial.
On October 1, 1997, the Deputy Ombudsman wrote another letter revoking and withdrawing its earlier directive to conduct a re-investigation and/or clarificatory questions.
On October 8, 1997, the Deputy Ombudsman issued the first assailed Order denying motions for clarificatory hearing.
Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration and a supplement; the Deputy Ombudsman issued the second assailed Order on January 8, 1998.
The second assailed Order denied reconsideration on the view that it was, in substance, a second motion for reconsideration of the resolution dated August 10, 1